There as been a lot of discussion on here about depth vs angles, along with many aspects on this topic. We all know that Depth Control is a huge Key to great tennis, but how deep? The discussions have been difficult due to various definitions each individual seems to hold on their idea of great depth (extreme depth), so for this thread, we will reference the definition found in a couple instructional books ....."the back 3 ft of the court" to the baseline, as well as often seen in instruction and diagrams. Hi Tech Tennis recommends to hit at least within 5ft of the baseline.

But more than 5ft away from the BL, then you will be in the group that agrees that Moderate depth can be useful and even more desirable when it comes to what is optimal for rally shots and mid ct ball attack attempts for this discussion.

Now please understand, I'm not agreeing with the idea of "Extreme depth" defined above, but just providing a definition for a frame of reference on how this has been taught thru the years. I think even most Touring Pros miss too much when going for the great or extreme depth within
4-5 feet of the BL But many rec players are shooting for the back foot of the court!

I'm in the camp that believes in hitting "well short of the BL" or for a more moderate depth.
The idea is that shots will land in or near the triangles of course, but more to the point, the deep cone marks your target line from where your shot is contacted, as well as the max depth we will hit for. We will often hit slightly deeper than the deep cone due to catching the ball strong and aggressive, but that is the purpose of the margins of error built into the triangle. The 2 short cones mark an area that we generally seek to pass....and form a gate if you will, to hit into the triangle or slightly beyond, and are on the shorter side of things to account for times when we are in position to go for sharper angles. As a general idea, we should hit more for the deep cone when looking to work the court more vertically as we do with RALLY Shots, and hit closer to the shorter cone section of the triangle when looking to work our shots for more width as we do with mid court attack shots.

The basic idea of this using the proposed triangle target is to improve
consistency of shot making without giving up any ability to place a
challenge on our opponents. My charting has proved to me that even
in the pros, they rarely hit in the back 3ft or so of the court, and
when they do, it may quite well be unintended to an extent. Even
though they rarely hit this deep, they clearly find ways to put heavy
demands on their opponents.

What we have found using these targets was a small surprise for us.
I had expected that using more conservative depth and targets might
well let us hit stronger, but the extent of it was still surprising,
especially to some of the college players I shared this with. They foundthis target system allowed them to swing much more freely, gaining
extra pace and spin. They also are surprised how quickly this style of
play tends to get them a short ball to attack. When attacking short balls,
they find they can execute aggressively at a much higher consistency,
which results in far few UEs and more attacks converted to points won. This was especially important as it was the goal of this project to begin with...and based on the idea that 2 well matched opponents will win or lose primarily based on how efficient and effective they are dealing with short balls and mid ct attack opportunities.

I refer to hitting less than extreme depth as "hitting shorter" or "ideal target depth" opposed to saying hit short.
But, to hit short would mean to hit shorter than our target or "ideal depth". Ideal depth would be to hit shorter than "extreme depth", which has also been considered great depth.
Writing this gives me even more insight how confusing these definitions can be and hard for readers to keep it all straight.

For Smart Targets in my instruction,
I like to use 3 cones on each side of the court, that form a triangle on each the deuce and ad side. The 1st cone about 11 ft past the svc line which is 2 ft past the half way pt of svc line to BL. That puts the cones about 7 ft from the BL and about 18 inches from the sideline. This is our deep cone.

For the short cone I also use 18 inches from sideline, with this one being 2 feet inside the svc line.

For the cross ct cone I use a line from the deep cone which goes across the net to the deepest doubles corner cross ct. On that imaginary line the xct cone goes approximately 3ft past the svc line.

These 3 cones form a triangle shaped target zone, one on the deuce then another on the ad side. These 2 triangle targets will work well for most all shots from dtl to well cross court. There will definitely be several exceptions we can use from using these targets, but these 2 targets will work well for a vast majority of rally and mid-short ball attacks. Defining smart exceptions will be great to discuss in this thread.

i've posted this before. This hitting close to the baseline thing is a myth.

Click to expand...

Man, I need your skills. Not only does this make things clear that less than 10% are real deep, but you could move that line twice as far from the BL and still have a large majority of balls (80-85%) falling short of it.

But most will have you believe the pros hit so deep and you should too; and that
if you don't bang it deep the 4.0 and 4.5 will crush most of them for winners or the like.

Also realize this pic does not show the many misses long when they went for too much depth.

I definitely understand more after the clarificaiton, and interesting enough, the vast majority of djokovics shots are in those two triangles. It definitely is more interesting to think about than the old adage of "hit deep"

I think a major problem i have struggled with myself is I haven't focused on hitting to zones, or smart targets as you refer to them (which I like). And the next time i'm on the court I will definitely be thinking about these and focusing on hitting into these zones when i am in an attacking position.

I would love to know why every single pro I have used has emphasized hitting deep as the primary objective with a rally ball, almost to the exclusion of anything else (ie. angles, spin etc.). Why do they keep setting up targets 2 feet from the baseline and expect me to hit it? Incompetent wankers!!

Click to expand...

I so appreciate you posting this. You would not believe how many posters have denied this happens.

Myself I have always thought of a triangle over the court. So I agree with it through my experience. However there are two things:

1) The data window here is too narrow. It's needs to be tracked with more than one pro player over a longer period of time.

2) Does this information apply to recreational players?

Pros hit with a level of pace and spin that will certainly make a shorter ball penetrate more deeply in the court (Pseudo Deep) than recreational players can generate.

-SF

Click to expand...

Still working on getting the right target triangles on the pic, but

#1) I've done charting with this over the last couple of years. That diagram is pretty typical for shot placements.

#2) Even more so with rec players IMO.

Yes, Pros hit with more pace, but they also cut off balls better and attack short balls unbelievably better, so this will favor rec players even more, so yes pros hits stronger but also attack better. Charting shows rec players tend to lose more points trying to attack shot balls than they make. Few rec players attack worth a darn and that is part of why pushers often beat all but the best players. Rec player hit weaker, but attack poorer too, so it washes out for the most part.

Several important points come up on this.
1. learning this target system will help you hit stronger since the margin of error is better. This more than makes up for hitting closer to the lines to win points.
2.Learning this will help you to be a better attacker in 2 major ways
a) learning this helps you to learn more about what balls are truly attackable vs what balls are just sort of short but still dangerous.
b)using smarter targets on truly attackable balls will give you more margin, but still keep things challenging for your opponents.

3rd point relates to a post I made in another thread about when you play someone far better than you. Many if not most rec matches have quite a disparity in skill, even if they are rated the same. Even if scores are sort of close, often one player is in control and can get the point on demand, especially if he falls behind. This better player can be aggressive and loose, but pull out points when he really needs to, keeping the score under control. We can't let these matches teach us the wrong lessons. Much more is learned about strategy and shot placement by looking at well matched sets where it's more of a coin toss. This is where we can learn what works under pressure.

There is little strategy that will help you or even a pro when solidly over matched. This strategy does give you the absolute best chance to win though, because making your shots is the only thing you can do to have a chance. Using targets that give you best chance to hit them, while still providing a challenge to the opponent are your only chance for success.

Myself I have always thought of a triangle over the court. So I agree with it through my experience. However there are two things:

1) The data window here is too narrow. It's needs to be tracked with more than one pro player over a longer period of time.

2) Does this information apply to recreational players?

Pros hit with a level of pace and spin that will certainly make a shorter ball penetrate more deeply in the court (Pseudo Deep) than recreational players can generate.

-SF

Click to expand...

If you pay attention when watching ATP matches that shot chart that is shown will be very consistent with most of the players on tour. Another chart was shown on Federer from the AO and it showed the same thing.

Yes i think that it apply's to rec players also, but you do need to have some decent pace and spin on the ball. You don't want to hit short weak balls consistently, that would be asking for trouble.

The basic idea of this using the proposed triangle target is to improve
consistency of shot making without giving up any ability to place a
challenge on our opponents. My charting has proved to me that even
in the pros, they rarely hit in the back 3ft or so of the court, and
when they do, it may quite well be unintended to an extent. Even
though they rarely hit this deep, they clearly find ways to put heavy
demands on their opponents.

What we have found using these targets was a small surprise for us.
I had expected that using more conservative depth and targets might
well let us hit stronger, but the extent of it was still surprising,
especially to some of the college players I shared this with. They found
this target system allowed them to swing much more freely, gaining
extra pace and spin. They also are surprised how quickly this style of
play tends to get them a short ball to attack. When attacking short balls,
they find they can execute aggressively at a much higher consistency,
which results in far few UEs and more attacks converted to points won.

Click to expand...

Excellent points here 5263, this is to me is the bread and butter of the matter. By not hitting so deep it actually lets you swing faster and more freely, which in turn gives you more spin and pace. When you are not so concerned with your shot going to deep you can let it rip.

Also like you mention when they do get the ball to attack they will convert a much higher % into winners. That is something a lot of people don't understand when you get the attackable ball it is usually not necessary to hit it deep. Many times it is the exact opposite were it is better to hit a sharper angle for the winner as opposed to going deep.

And by practicing the way you are describing will get this ingrained into the player and really improve their game. I don't know how many times i have gotten the sitter i wanted and then made a error because i hit the ball just a little long when there was no reason to have put anywhere near that depth on that shot. Then you look at all the open court you had and think why in the hell did i even hit that ball even close to the baseline.

Excellent points here 5263, this is to me is the bread and butter of the matter. By not hitting so deep it actually lets you swing faster and more freely, which in turn gives you more spin and pace. When you are not so concerned with your shot going to deep you can let it rip.

Click to expand...

Thanks tlm,

I appreciate how you understand the important points on this and are able to help me put into words to share with others who might have an interest here.

If you pay attention when watching ATP matches that shot chart that is shown will be very consistent with most of the players on tour. Another chart was shown on Federer from the AO and it showed the same thing.

Yes i think that it apply's to rec players also, but you do need to have some decent pace and spin on the ball. You don't want to hit short weak balls consistently, that would be asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree per say. However, a person's recollection is not scientific evidence. As well, taking one or two examples is not proof.

Thanks tlm,
I've got a pic with the Smart Targets roughed in, but have not worked out how to get it inserted yet. I guess you have to have it stored to a url first?

But, I appreciate how you understand the important points on this and are able to help me put into words to share with others who might have an interest here.

Click to expand...

Believe me i understand them, but i wish i could execute them as well as i understand them. I need to do some drilling with targets like you are doing, this seems like a great method of getting it to become second nature.

Sometimes i can get in the groove really well and other times i am either hitting to short or hitting to deep and making to many errors.

You mentioned that against many rec players that they don't attack even short weak balls very well, which can be true. But against some of my opponents they attack them pretty good and i will pay for those shots.

But some of these player are definitely above my level, so i guess it should be no surprise. I think because they are better than me that they force more weak short balls out of me because they take my time away with their shots.

Which in turn lets them take over the point and does not work out good for me. But you are right against many players i can get away with some weak short balls because they can't attack them very well anyway, but it can let a net rusher into the court to allow a good approach shot.

I believe the OP was suggesting these targets for when you are in an attacking position. So he's not suggesting you hit a floater within the service line and expect it to be a forceful shot.

Nadal hits so many shots landing inside the service line but with the spin it still forces his opponents to stay back and doesn't allow them to attack. However, we cannot hit with that amount of spin, so our shots won't be as penetrating, and some people get scared and thinks that means they have to hit deeper, which isn't true. We can't hit like Nadal and neither can our opponents

I do not disagree per say. However, a person's recollection is not scientific evidence. As well, taking one or two examples is not proof.

-SF

Click to expand...

Okay then i am sure if you research this enough you will find what you are looking for. I just have noticed over the years of watching tennis that the pro men players do not hit near as deep as often as a lot of people think they do.

Okay then i am sure if you research this enough you will find what you are looking for. I just have noticed over the years of watching tennis that the pro men players do not hit near as deep as often as a lot of people think they do.

Click to expand...

I've been studying this for a few years now and have never seen one of those diagrams showing many shots near the lines or consistently with that extreme depth. I actually think this one has more near the sidelines than most I've seen and DJ is one of the deeper hitters even though he has pulled back a bit from the lines over the last yr and a half.
We only collect evidence, but there is no proof because the game is a moving target in that respect. Always changing and evolving to an extent.

Ok, redrew it, you can see the triangles, but i still left the cross bars connecting the short and deep balls just to facilitate the viewer to help see the proper depths you described.

I definitely understand more after the clarificaiton, and interesting enough, the vast majority of djokovics shots are in those two triangles. It definitely is more interesting to think about than the old adage of "hit deep"

I think a major problem i have struggled with myself is I haven't focused on hitting to zones, or smart targets as you refer to them (which I like). And the next time i'm on the court I will definitely be thinking about these and focusing on hitting into these zones when i am in an attacking position.

Click to expand...

What a super job there BU! Thanks, I really appreciate the work.

I bet you can see while most shots do fall in the target zone, that most of the rest could be seen as the result of going for the targets and just missing. The idea with these targets is to give a reference more than to actually hit them. They provide a reference that helps to guide your intent in a way that allows you to be aggressive, but not reckless.

One question. How did you figure the scale? Do you think the side of the triangle by the doubles ally should be a bit closer? Not complaining, but just wondering cause that side margin on the target looks just a little to big, about like the line for the back 3ft. Really is not important due to explanation above about how to use the target though.

I believe the OP was suggesting these targets for when you are in an attacking position. So he's not suggesting you hit a floater within the service line and expect it to be a forceful shot.

Nadal hits so many shots landing inside the service line but with the spin it still forces his opponents to stay back and doesn't allow them to attack. However, we cannot hit with that amount of spin, so our shots won't be as penetrating, and some people get scared and thinks that means they have to hit deeper, which isn't true. We can't hit like Nadal and neither can our opponents

Click to expand...

Excellent post here. I'm pretty sure tlm knows I was not suggesting to hit any short floaters, but you still did a nice job of making several points here, especially that last one.

Even though I don't recommend short floaters, I rather leave one of them than miss in most cases...especially from 2.5-4.0, since they are about as likely to miss the attack as to make it on avg. A ball in the court always gives us one more chance and that can't be underestimated in this game of errors.

One place I really hate to leave a floater though... and that is to the center T area. Allows them to use their better wing and go to the side or area they feel is their best option. Gives them lots of free confidence and tends to crush yours if you do that too much.

Another reference on what is considered great depth. While they don't come out and define the depth they are emphasizing in the newest Tennis Magazine, they do mention how effective they feel it is when the serve is returned within inches of the baseline. That is well inside the 3ft definition we are using here as extreme depth. I say by all means try to hit for this kind of depth if you want to miss about half your returns long.

Ok, redrew it, you can see the triangles, but i still left the cross bars connecting the short and deep balls just to facilitate the viewer to help see the proper depths you described.

Click to expand...

Hey BU, I guess I'm getting to be high maintenance, but going over this with a college player this morning I realized the deep cone was set a little too deep.
The deep cone should be about 4ft short of the extreme depth line, which will improve the triangle and make it a bit fatter looking I expect,
especially if we move it and the short cone a bit closer to the wide line to enable us to be a little closer to the line when hitting the dtl.
If you can make these 2 changes it would be greatly appreciated.
Also would you want to try one without the 2 extra lines connecting the 2 cones to see how that would look in comparison?
thanks a ton,

Deep means beyond the service line. It is clear that Djokovic hits deep.

Click to expand...

Looks like you missed the definitions in the OP!
That is incorrect for the purposes of this discussion.

I can add that no instructor would consider barely hitting past the svc line a deep shot,
but would instead be considered acceptable by some standards, but clearly not deep.
Dr Allen Fox refers to hitting AT Least half way between svc line & BL as a miniumum in "Think to Win", where in this discussion that is closer to "ideal depth".
Often the balls we see attacked for winners are well beyond the svc line though,
so you give further evidence that deep alone (by your definition) is not protection from getting attacked.
Your comment is also a good example of the confusions about depth and it's significance.
Deep is even often considered a correct callout for an "out" ball that is long, so yes, DJ does hit some deep as well by that standard. This is why I started with some definitions to start the discussion.

Looks like you missed the definitions in the OP!
That is incorrect for the purposes of this discussion.

I can add that no instructor would consider barely hitting past the svc line a deep shot,
but would instead be considered acceptable by some standards, but clearly not deep.
Often the balls we see attacked for winners are well beyond the svc line though,
so you give further evidence that deep alone (by your definition) is not protection from getting attacked.
Your comment is also a good example of the confusions about depth and it's significance.
Deep is even often considered the correct call for an "out" ball that is long, so yes, DJ does hit some deep as well by that standard. This is why I started with some definitions to start the discussion.

Click to expand...

You are right sureshs missed the definition, but what is new? He always misses the definition and has a uncanny ability to switch and swap things around and mostly miss the point.

For him to say now that deep means beyond the service line is one of the bigger piles of BS he has ever come up with, and believe me that is not easy to top.

Just a few weeks ago he would have argued to death that just beyond the serve line would have been a short shot. But i guess now after seeing the shot charts that were shown and with no way to dispute that, he now claims that joker hits deep because most shots are past the serve line.

Is this just to hilarious or what, a lot of these guys should have been politicians.

I definitely understand more after the clarificaiton, and interesting enough, the vast majority of djokovics shots are in those two triangles. It definitely is more interesting to think about than the old adage of "hit deep"

I think a major problem i have struggled with myself is I haven't focused on hitting to zones, or smart targets as you refer to them (which I like). And the next time i'm on the court I will definitely be thinking about these and focusing on hitting into these zones when i am in an attacking position.

Click to expand...

I want to thank you again for the adjustments to the pic!
Very nice. It was subtle, but I think clears up the picture some.

Now that we have a good visual on the Smart Targets, we
can look at how they can help our game. In most instances
one of these targets will be an excellent choice. Sure there
are several exceptions like with any general rule, but for the
most part, these are a great starting point or default target.
You can see these are not about extreme angles or hitting
short on purpose. They are more about not hitting so long.
The shorter area of the target is there for when you do want
to increase the angle, and are something to hit past when going
for the deeper area of the the target on most normal shots.

By keeping the ball out of the center, you tend to limit your
opponents options. Sampras was known to speak of how the
one who controls the center of the court will control the points.
Using these targets, we can keep the opponent from controlling
the center.

These targets have a good safety margin built in, so it frees up
your swing. Because you are not targeting extreme depth, you
can really let your natural power flow. I'm not suggesting to over
swing, but more to let your shots go and not have to hold back.
I think modern TS strokes work best in this regard, but this will
help with traditional as well.

One note on this is -the idea on these triangles is to give a target
reference for the shots, and NOT so much to hit the target. That
may seem a little odd, but using them it begins to make more
sense. They serve as a great reference, but slightly flying the deep
cone a little is not a bad thing when you decide to rip into one hard.
There is a margin built in to accommodate that.

Is this just to hilarious or what, a lot of these guys should have been politicians.

Click to expand...

Whats interesting to me is they kept telling us that the best players hit extremely
deep, and close to the lines; and when that doesn't happen, the other pro
would put that ball away immediately.
Now we provide charting and diagrams that show that is often not the
case, so you would think they would at least consider rethinking things.
They are curious, which is why they keep asking for more and more info,

^^^^Yeah the first picture I drew the triangles were a little larger which incorporated more shots. But the point isn't that shots necessarily land in the area, but that djokovic was probably aiming for a point within those triangles and missed by a few feet, which of course is usual when trying to hit with so much power.

I think people watch pros, see them hit a shot DTL which lands right on the line, and think they were aiming for that exact result, when in fact they were probably aiming a foot or so inside the line. If you watch pros at exhibition events and they try to hit targets you'll often see them missing by 2-4 feet on easily fed balls, so you can imagine the error margin when they're trying to run a tough shot down and then pass their opponent charging the net.

Rosewall I made a new image with your different target zones for attack and counter-attack. I also then highlighted the area in Green which is the zone which is shared by both attack and counter attack and highlighted the Smart Targets in Yellow.

The zones you speak of are the traditional type of thought which 5263 says are outdated, and not supported by actual play results. However, this is not meant to be accusery, since I thought the same as you before this thread started lol!

The biggest thing to take away from this diagram is to see that the shared zone is a triagnle, very similar in shape to the Smarter Targets. However, the big problem is that the zone leaves no margin for error. We are assuming you aim for a specific point within that one, so if you pick the line you can't miss that spot long at all without losing the point.

the Smart Zones provide an answer to this problem by providing a margin of error. If you aim for the deepest part of the zone then even if you miss it long by 3 feet, you're still one foot within the line!! (and Aim is improper when talking about tennis but no other word i can think of really captures the idea of trying to hit to a specific point...than aim?)

Looks like you missed the definitions in the OP!
That is incorrect for the purposes of this discussion.

I can add that no instructor would consider barely hitting past the svc line a deep shot,
but would instead be considered acceptable by some standards, but clearly not deep.
Often the balls we see attacked for winners are well beyond the svc line though,
so you give further evidence that deep alone (by your definition) is not protection from getting attacked.
Your comment is also a good example of the confusions about depth and it's significance.
Deep is even often considered the correct call for an "out" ball that is long, so yes, DJ does hit some deep as well by that standard. This is why I started with some definitions to start the discussion.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Mary Jo Fernandez said once that her coach uses to do a 1000 ball drill when if you did not hit one deep, you would have to start all over again - and deep meant at least beyond the service line.

These are wonderful illustrations, but they would be even better if they were filpped upside down, to see the other side of the net, where we see a view of where we are actually looking to hit.

Click to expand...

I love your suggestion here. It probably won't contain the shot spots that way, but we can still get a view from the other side. It might be best with cones that stick up though as the triangle might be hard to see. I guess it depends on the angle we see it at.
Maybe our talented friends can do something with your request?

The zones you speak of are the traditional type of thought which 5263 says are outdated, and not supported by actual play results. However, this is not meant to be accusery, since I thought the same as you before this thread started lol!

The biggest thing to take away from this diagram is to see that the shared zone is a triagnle, very similar in shape to the Smarter Targets. However, the big problem is that the zone leaves no margin for error. We are assuming you aim for a specific point within that one, so if you pick the line you can't miss that spot long at all without losing the point.

the Smart Zones provide an answer to this problem by providing a margin of error. If you aim for the deepest part of the zone then even if you miss it long by 3 feet, you're still one foot within the line!! (and Aim is improper when talking about tennis but no other word i can think of really captures the idea of trying to hit to a specific point...than aim?)

Click to expand...

BU, you really get it. Aim may not be the best word, and I try to remember to say target an area, but aim is fine I expect as well.

An important thing related to Aim or targeting. I've found for myself and working with many students that having a specific target is much more effective than going for a large area. An example with golf/putting. When I putt to make the hole, I make it or miss quite close, but when I just try to get close to lay up, I tend to miss by a far greater margin which makes the final putt tougher. I now putt to make the ball stop in the hole, but not past it. This gives a nice layup when I miss. Like you mention, those larger areas have no margin for area and also less specific target/aim points. The Smart Target Triangles give us more specific targets and have a nice margin for safety.

Glad to see you made it over and very interested in how things go with
some practice using the Smart Targets. Let us know.

Click to expand...

I hit pretty deep with the Wilson 6.1., and that is with heavy top on the ball.

It's not easy to break that habit, but I also have a lighter Pro Open that should help a little with angles. Usually I can drop the ball in a little shorter and with more angle when I use a little bit of a lighter racquet.

^^^^Yeah the first picture I drew the triangles were a little larger which incorporated more shots. But the point isn't that shots necessarily land in the area, but that djokovic was probably aiming for a point within those triangles and missed by a few feet, which of course is usual when trying to hit with so much power.

I think people watch pros, see them hit a shot DTL which lands right on the line, and think they were aiming for that exact result, when in fact they were probably aiming a foot or so inside the line. If you watch pros at exhibition events and they try to hit targets you'll often see them missing by 2-4 feet on easily fed balls, so you can imagine the error margin when they're trying to run a tough shot down and then pass their opponent charging the net.

Click to expand...

Again, Excellent points.
As you discuss, these targets are not about seeing how many hits from any one shot spot diagram that we can have in the target as much as being a smart reference. Also as you point out, many of the hits outside the targets could be seen as close misses. It is also important to note that the ones missing to the inside are not as well placed for the most part! Sure there are exceptions why they are not in the targets, but generally the central ones would be better if closer to the targets we have.

I hit pretty deep with the Wilson 6.1., and that is with heavy top on the ball.

It's not easy to break that habit, but I also have a lighter Pro Open that should help a little with angles. Usually I can drop the ball in a little shorter and with more angle when I use a little bit of a lighter racquet.

Click to expand...

For a guy like you who hits well deep and pretty consistently already,
I would recommend more of a focus on the deeper cone, which is pretty
deep, but still provides some extra margin. When you catch one strong
and fly it, you will still have a great shot and some variety. Working the
shorter aspects of the target have more specific intents such as working
an angle off a nice short sitter from near the middle of the court (center T).

Are you sure about that? I tried counting the shots, and it looks to me like a large majority of the shots were outside the two triangles.

Click to expand...

Sure about what?

This diagram of hit placement shows that DJ does not hit as deep and close to lines as many would have you believe.
There is no intent to say he uses these targets or ends up in them the majority of the time. I think many will see a relevance between what his shots show and how these targets work.

It may be misleading to some for us to use this overlay, so I'm glad you asked this question. Thanks

i've always thought of targets during a rally as a form of attack and counter attack

attack

counter. a counter to counter scenario would follow the directionals. Hitting to either middle triangles would allow the op to take control of the centre and thus the rally.

It helps me to figure out where to hit during play. I also found this to be subconscious strategy amongst the pros in the matches i've watched.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this and I'm familiar with this perspective, but see some flaws that need to be addressed. I think my Smart Targets address them.

1st is they are very broad and lack more specific guidance that helps shots to be more accurate.
2ond is the obvious lack of margin for error since the target is includes the lines and corners.
3rd is their use may be just backwards. Notice how the counter attack includes area near the center T. We have not posted it yet, but the next diagram I intend to get posted will show an "avoid zone" near the center T for singles play.
Also on the attack aspect it includes the middle area that is deep to BL. That would be better on the counter attack chart and why hit there when on the attack? (yes there are some reasons, but they would be exceptions to the rule, not in the rule)
Hitting a ball (even deep) gives the opponent a chance to reclaim center control and put you on the move to a weakness.
Make sense?

I don't know. Mary Jo Fernandez said once that her coach uses to do a 1000 ball drill when if you did not hit one deep, you would have to start all over again - and deep meant at least beyond the service line.

Click to expand...

And you don't see how for that drill passing the svc line was just the min acceptable
in that drill? Not the ideal for her.
I expect if you were doing the drill with her on court it would be more clear for
you about that. Also that is just a drill. Sometimes they drill using only half the court including the doubles ally. That does not mean they want you to use the doubles all in singles play though.

BTW, the point of that drill is to have players learn to target within the boundaries consistently, NOT to hit at the boundaries -Svc line are. On court they make it very clear you are to greatly exceed that min acceptable svc line, often with comments like missing long is far more acceptable than being short of the svc line.

I ask you-In a match, had you rather hit a solid shot 1" into the svc box or monster shot 1" pasts the BL?

I hope that soon I can ask BU to add red box at the center T as an "Avoid Area" to the diagram shown in post #24. This square box should be about 7ft on the sides and centered on the center T (hint, hint BU)

Man, I need your skills. Not only does this make things clear that less than 10% are real deep, but you could move that line twice as far from the BL and still have a large majority of balls (80-85%) falling short of it.

But most will have you believe the pros hit so deep and you should too; and that
if you don't bang it deep the 4.0 and 4.5 will crush most of them for winners or the like.

Also realize this pic does not show the many misses long when they went for too much depth.

Exactly beer,
I wish it showed the misses as well.
Things like that are what jumped out at me in my study and charting.
Commentators and coaches often give such compliments for line shots and
those that catch both lines as the "Perfect Placement" and such.
Can really lead you to believe that they are good targets and pros hit there
often.

Tricky part here is that a lot of folks say a lot of things. It all goes into the
brain and leads to certain ideas about the game. No coach or commentator
has it all right or wrong, so we are being critical of certain ideas, not coaches.
Coaches do their best, and here we are looking at some tools that might help
us do better. My experience is broad having raised two D1 college players and coached about 20 yrs. We delt with the top Jr academies and several local ones. My kids were also picked for USTA high performance as top players, so we have seen a lot of what's out there. I just look to address some of these things that IMO could use improvement. Clearly the old stuff is not cutting it anymore for US players.

-doesnt allow your opponent to step in to the court
-makes your opponent return short/without pace balls so you can easily step in and hit an approach

-as your opponent is far behind the court you can easily have the court open to hit an angle or a drop shot which will turn into a winner

-doesnt allow oponent to attack or dictate

-cons of hittinh your shots deep: NONE

seriously guys its better to hit soft but deep balls than hard but short balls thats the key to win, the deeper you hit the shorter your opponent will hit then you step inner to the court and do whatever you want

if you want an example watch federer play in those years where he played with absolute dominance, watch those guys running from side to side screaming those short return they hit while federer easily doesnt have to move to win the point

and if you dont want to spend hours looking for a federer video then just watch the 2011 us open semi against djokovic, i assure you the 90% of the time that any of them hit a short ball the other ended up winning the point with a winner

pros of hitting your shots deep:
-gives less time for your opponent to react
-doesnt allow your opponent to step in to the court
-makes your opponent return short/without pace balls so you can easily step in and hit an approach
-as your opponent is far behind the court you can easily have the court open to hit an angle or a drop shot which will turn into a winner
-if dropshot is so easy, why do we see so few and many missed?
-doesnt allow oponent to attack or dictate
-cons of hittinh your shots deep: NONE

if you want an example watch federer play in those years where he played with absolute dominance, watch those guys running from side to side screaming those short return they hit while federer easily doesnt have to move to win the point

and if you dont want to spend hours looking for a federer video then just watch the 2011 us open semi against djokovic, i assure you the 90% of the time that any of them hit a short ball the other ended up winning the point with a winner

Click to expand...

-deep alone gives more reaction time, not less
-deep does not keep them from stepping into the court. they can step in and volley
-notice you had to add the "no pace" to try and make this true, not just depth and you forget the importance in shot line on this
-opponents can attack and dictate from deep balls
-cons of hitting very deep none?? guess you never missed long?
Con is lots of deep misses giving up free points

Fed didn't hit as deep back in the days of his best. He didn't hit as deep to beat Del Potro as he did in his AO loss. Joker didn't hit so deep to win the AO.
You can be assured they hit winners on far less than 20% of the shorter balls and probably less than 10%.
Sorry, but little of your comments holds water.